Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary

Beyond 120 Days, No Right to File Written Statement – Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment, the Delhi High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Ms. Justice Shalinder Kaur, today underscored the non-negotiability of statutory time limits in commercial disputes. The case titled ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan revolved around the issue of condoning the delay in filing a written statement in a loan default matter.

The Crux of Legal Point: At the heart of the judgment was the interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. Specifically, the matter concerned whether a delay beyond the statutorily stipulated 120 days for filing a written statement in a commercial dispute could be condoned.

Background and Factual Matrix: ICICI Bank Ltd., the petitioner, approached the High Court challenging the Commercial Court’s decision that condoned the respondent's delay in filing a written statement. The dispute originated from a loan default by Chauhan, against whom the bank sought recovery. The bank's contention was based on the strict timelines set by the Supreme Court for filing written statements in commercial disputes.

Justice Kaur delved into the case, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 120-day period for filing written statements in commercial disputes, as per Supreme Court directives in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt Ltd Vs K S Chamankar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. The judgment scrutinized the correctness of service of summons and the implication of the mediation process on the filing timeline.

The Court observed the Commercial Court's oversight in its failure to rigorously examine the reasons for the delay. It stressed the need for adherence to prescribed timelines, highlighting the importance of speedy and efficient justice in commercial litigation.

Verdict: Overturning the Commercial Court's decision, the High Court directed that the respondent’s written statement, filed beyond the permissible period, should not be taken on record. This decision firmly reiterates the judiciary's stance on the sanctity of procedural timelines in commercial matters.

Date of Decision: March 27, 2024

ICICI Bank Ltd. vs Anirudh Chauhan

Similar News